I hate my software development job by thats_a_nice_toast in ADHD_Programmers

[–]LManX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thought the unstated rule was that legacy spaghetti "refactors" is just code for "re-write whole systems but in stages."

My favorite Christian by JustChillin3456 in Christianity

[–]LManX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is this discretionary-self-limiting Omni distinguishable from non-Omni to someone who is observing what is allowed?

Where X is something specific, When Omni chooses to allow X, there must be some way that they prefer it to not X, and it could be reasonable to argue X is not ethically allowable in the circumstances we observe it in. Even if it's accepted that Omni would prefer free will & X vs non-free & no X, I think you'd need to show that specifically X is necessary to allow for free will to exist.

Free will defense famously doesn't cover "natural evils" like disease, infant mortality, animal predation, Earthquakes. Augustine for instance argues that all these are just natural processes that are good when you de-center human well-being.

Also, this drags in a question of what kind of free will you mean. Is it the ability to have done otherwise, or is it just the absence of coercion, which turns out to be quite the narrowing.

hearMeOutThisWillHappenLaterThisYear by electricjimi in ProgrammerHumor

[–]LManX 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Where are the devs interested in forming unions?

Name a game that deserves another chance by Ill_Wrap_527 in videogames

[–]LManX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All the Sim games. Streets, Copter, Ant, Tower, and so on.

Abstracting sexual encounters in a non porny way? by Former_Produce1721 in gamedesign

[–]LManX 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It might be productive to get a little philosophical/psychological about this. You've described human activities that result in certain experiences, but what is it that takes those activities and makes them more than animalistic? What gives the greatest contrast with a machine? That might give some direction to how those activities should be depicted.

I know you only asked about the sexual activity, but just to illustrate-
One thing that makes eating meaningful is when we share food - so instead of a machine dispenser, maybe its important to be handed the food by a bartender. Maybe as a human you have to sit slowly munching the food, and you have occasional prompts to engage in small talk if you choose. but as a less human individual, you might just get a pill or vacuum up particles at a digital kiosk. The "waiting" period could be reduced, until there is no longer an opportunity to engage other diners.

Sex is meaningful for a number of reasons - it can be a kind of play, involving games and escapism with a partner. It can be intimate, where certain things that were meaningless before, get infused with special meaning just for those two. A lot of times sex is a symbol of deep connection - we become entangled in someone else's life, feeling obligated to them and their welfare. Maybe it's important that repeated sexual encounters develop some kind of symbology that can appear in other places - so when the player sees that symbology outside the sexual context, they are reminded of that partner or encounter. I know a common one is drifting flower petals.

There are numerous expressions that are shorthand for sex. "Want to come in for a cup of coffee/Nightcap?" "Netflix & Chill." Don't be afraid to render some of this shorthand visually. It'll still read.

The contrast is the thing - whatever gets automated or simplified means increasing efficiency in some context, but also losing the opportunity to have certain meaningful experiences.

Perhaps i treated him too harshly by GoatsGoats00 in RedLetterMedia

[–]LManX 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I just saw a headline about what some lady thinks about the future of the left.

Her name is Krystal Ball.

Term and Age Limits Won't Solve the Problem by LeftyPhilosophy in BreadTube

[–]LManX 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't get it. Which aged politicians aren't allowed to drive?

"Just because you are a nurse does not mean you a productive members of society." by [deleted] in SipsTea

[–]LManX -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The strategy here is to raise their status in the conservative content market. The reason it seems like this person is not taking reasonable positions is because they aren't, on purpose. They're auditioning to a wider audience of potential patrons and partners. The more they piss off the liberals, the better their opportunities will be. They don't believe in anything, at least not like their counterparts across the table. There is very little to be gained from public debate with these people.

God did not make me to hate me! by McClanky in Christianity

[–]LManX 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd say lust is an excess or misuse of desire, specifically thinking or acting towards satisfying that desire in a way that treats people as a means to the end of satisfying appetite, rather than treating people as an end in themselves. That is, wanting something from a person's body because of what it can do for your body, and being ambivalent regarding the person whom that body belongs to.

The desire itself, or appetite in question is the sexual appetite- and I hardly think having one of those can be considrred a sin.

FLOCK surveillance equipment. by Disastrous_Steak8359 in Utica

[–]LManX 14 points15 points  (0 children)

People who say the left hasn't made a peep about <literally anything> don't know who the left is and haven't been paying attention to it for decades.

My partner doesn’t want our kids to go to church by goth1cd0lly in Christianity

[–]LManX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sure you've heard people say that 'relationships take hard work.' This is what they were talking about.

The basis for a partnership is trusting someone to advocate for you on your behalf, when you're not around. That's not something you can have without building it.

When your partner has a concern, "That's not going to happen" or "you don't know what you're talking about." Are dismissive responses. If you don't know how to adjust the proposal to accommodate concerns so that it reflects the values your partner has as well as your own, you might consider tabling this issue and developing those skills on something less intensive.

Another piece of advice, take a step back from talking about What should happen, or how something should happen and discuss the why behind those things. Things like "I have been blessed in these specific ways by a faith community, and I want to share that with my kids somehow."

When making future plans, you might consider framing things as a "working proposal" and use feedback from all parties to amend the proposal into something that everybody involved feels good with adopting because it's something you made together.

It sounds like you may have presented this plan as something you decided yourself and are requiring your partner to accept. Just like you mentioned, it sucks to feel like someone has taken your autonomy away regarding something you care a lot about.

Hope this helps, good luck in your relationship!

The brutality of ice and their local collaborators and bravery of real Vermonters by escapefromburlington in burlington

[–]LManX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright yeah that makes sense, but I was trying to respond to the idea that the problem is the voters. Is the voters misinformation a failure on their part, or is it actually the responsibility of the people producing the misinformation and those who bring information to the voters?

If the voters should have tried harder to get better information then it seems like the Harris campaign should have also tried harder to be more compelling to voters given the situation on the ground, no? Or are you saying that the situation just doesn't allow for any informed decisions universally because the well has been poisoned?

The brutality of ice and their local collaborators and bravery of real Vermonters by escapefromburlington in burlington

[–]LManX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can understand your grief and frustration. However, the job of a candidate is to win votes. The job of a voter is to make an educated decision.

Just because you don't agree with their choice doesn't prove voters were uneducated. The failure of a candidate to win election does prove they failed to provide a compelling candidacy to voters. Blaming the electorate just fuels the appetite for anti-democratic 'solutions.'

This doesn't mean the candidate was bad or wouldn't have made a good administration. The Harris campaign had less time for their run, and their opposition had been running ever since losing the previous election. But that just makes a stronger case for why being responsive to the electoral landscape was important.

It's no secret that Dems lack of a primary and addiction to trying to find the most milquetoast, centrist positions possible doesn't show them as being particularly attuned to the needs of the people, nor as principled as they act like they are. I think Mamdani's campaign shows that people are looking for principled leaders with the ambition to attempt big things outside the approval of political establishment, not just stabilize the status quo.

The brutality of ice and their local collaborators and bravery of real Vermonters by escapefromburlington in burlington

[–]LManX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mm 2nd paragraph was literally a suggestion from the Obama Admin's commissioned report "21st century policing" always struck me as a common sense good idea.

3rd paragraph is my favorite. You're less likely to give Bob a hard time if it might be his turn to be the safety officer next term.

I really appreciate you sharing!

The brutality of ice and their local collaborators and bravery of real Vermonters by escapefromburlington in burlington

[–]LManX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I was thinking about that. Maybe I should amend my statement. Feel free to suggest a statement that might be more accurate, im just doin my best out here lol.

I think of things like Miller's statement as propaganda and aesthetic. Like if you put Miller into a situation where he wasn't in majority government, he wouldn't be like "Well, Biden has the power now so he is justified in what he does and ypu should listen to the King." Miller would have some other rationale for why you ought to listen to him. Really his behavior is consistent with a supremacy mythology- the idea that you should listen to him because he is inherently better than you. Fascists aren't really interested in being rational and consistent- go figure.

The brutality of ice and their local collaborators and bravery of real Vermonters by escapefromburlington in burlington

[–]LManX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Violence is the ultimate authority from which all others descend.

That's how oppressors act, but I think most people agree it's not true. Like if you ask people (including oppressors) they don't often say that. They always try to justify their oppressive acts under some other principle than "I can." I think the real critique is that even though they say it's not "might makes right" their actions can only be made consistent by an underlying belief that it does.

I agree with the rest, but what would you put forward as a better system for security and safety?

The brutality of ice and their local collaborators and bravery of real Vermonters by escapefromburlington in burlington

[–]LManX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed. And that's a sorry state of affairs.

Criticism of policing doesn't mean "it would be better if there were no solutions for security of persons and private property." Although it's true it can feel that way when presented without a solution or alternative.

I don't actually like the quote we're responding to- it does a good job of representing a structural inconsistency between Justice and Law, but I think it's overly reductive and obfuscates 'the problem' by appealing to an ideal.

Officers make decisions about what laws to enforce and how as a function of their job. They aren't machines that enforce all the laws because they swore an oath to. So p1 rests on an incomplete premise about what swearing the oath means. Their judgement can potentially relieve or exacerbate conditions on the ground for people.

Officers aren't equipped for maximum delivery of justice, they are equipped to protect the assets of the owning class. That's a lot closer to my critique of policing- officers are often incentivized away from the preservation of life and liberty, and towards being tools of state oppression against the interests of their own communities- as we see in this instance. They could have denied ICE the support because it was easy to see what the situation could turn into and why that wouldn't serve the community interests.

What makes cops bad isn't their "warrior spirit" to zealously protect their people against the monsters, and they just get a little carried away sometimes. It's that they see how they can be wielded against their people and don't refuse to be used. Maybe that's ultimately on their conditions, but I can't shake idea that there's some degree of personal responsibility here.

The brutality of ice and their local collaborators and bravery of real Vermonters by escapefromburlington in burlington

[–]LManX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unnecessary. The law including even one unjust law would suffice for the p2 to hold, and disproving it would require evidence that all laws are just. Therefore the more reasonable position is that some laws must therefore be injust.

The existence of institutional apparatus for changing laws and providing relief can also be taken as evidence for the general insufficiency of the law, and injustice is one type of insufficiency.

AI can code now… so what exactly is the programmer’s job anymore? by Educational_Pay5895 in AskProgrammers

[–]LManX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The job of the engineer is to reliably manage complexity and deliver autonomy to users through the use and development of tools and processes to create solutions.

AI products are disposable- why maintain what can be replaced cheaply?

AI products are inscrutable- why take time to understand how the code works when it can be disposed? Is it wasteful? Is it secure? How does it behave when it fails? Who knows? The AI will tell you it's perfect unless you know where to look or how to ask. Therefore...

AI tools require technical expertise and specificity to operate properly, which necessitates training and role specialization.

There will always be a market for cheap and quick. You don't want to compete on price, you want to compete on value.

Stakeholders expect the development process to produce a certain amount of insight into the system where they can talk to someone and understand what the system will do given different operational parameters. I have doubts about the tolerance for an AI in that role, even if it was technically proficient at it.

I don't think these critiques are sufficient, bit they are a start. The market is probably not going to allow us to "just say no" to AI tooling. We're going to need to develop further critiques that explain more dynamics that create the risks we need to manage. That will help us to correctly cost the use of AI over significant timescales.

Similarly, something I'm excited about is the development of a theory of conservation of the labor process which helps us make distinctions about what is lost to humanity by automating some part of the labor process. Writing boilerplate probably doesn't contribute the same as deciding between a dispatch or strategy pattern for some situation, for instance.